Election Day

[AI Wessex]

I'm wryly amused by Fenring's and Cherry's last two posts, as if they do anything but present their opinions about things.  What exactly do you each think the obvious meaning of your posts is?  Cherry I get, because he is psychologically predisposed to find fault in anything with a "democrat" label attached or in the vicinity, regardless of what the actual meaning might be.  Fenring posts a fave right-wing clip about Clinton celebrating the success of a possibly ill-advised objective that later turned out to have lots of unexpected consequences.  Are you both going out of your way to demonstrate that you have a strong visceral hatred for Hillary and a few scattered remnants of trivia to insist that they stand for everything you hate about her?

[Fenring]

Fenring posts a fave right-wing clip about Clinton celebrating the success of a possibly ill-advised objective that later turned out to have lots of unexpected consequences.

It's not a right-wing clip, it's a clip of reality. Neither is it editorial - it's video of what a person said on TV. If you think even mentioning it is "right wing" then I guess Hillary can't be held to her statements the same way Trump, a few posts ago, is being held to his.

[AI Wessex]

It's not a right-wing clip, it's a clip of reality. Neither is it editorial - it's video of what a person said on TV.

Fenring, what does the clip mean to you?

[Fenring]

It's not a right-wing clip, it's a clip of reality. Neither is it editorial - it's video of what a person said on TV.

Fenring, what does the clip mean to you?

There are a few things it means, as in, they are facts about what she's talking about. They don't mean that strictly to me, which would entail my opinion, although I do have opinions about it as well which I think are less pertinent than the facts:

1) The video shows a person laughing about the brutal, torturous murder of another person.

2) The video shows a person who was Secretary of State laughing about the assassination of a foreign head of state, after she herself called for his death; such an assassination is an international crime.

3) Hillary is quoting Caesar, a tyrant. In utilizing a triumphant Caesar quote after completing a bloody affair she championed, it could be construed that Hillary sees herself as some kind of rightful ruler of the stupid masses. It's debatable whether she really sees the people this way, but it doesn't seem very controversial that she sees herself as being part of a kind of elite ruling class. That she is quoting Caesar is a fact, but what that means is certainly a matter of interpretation.

I'm sure there's more I could read into it, such as the possible psychology of someone who would speak like this, but I'll leave it at these two facts and one interpretation of a fact.

[NobleHunter]

#3 is a pretty ridiculous stretch. Especially since the quote has nothing to do with Caesar's political ambitions but rather his military accomplishments.

[Fenring]

#3 is a pretty ridiculous stretch. Especially since the quote has nothing to do with Caesar's political ambitions but rather his military accomplishments.

It's not so much that by using this quote she is trying to promote the notion that she's a great military genius or triumphant leader or something. It's more the mentality of "why choose that quote?" I mean there are many great quotes from history from all kinds of people; poets, philosophers, pacifists, generals, civil rights leaders. She chose a quote from a military despot who believed in force and in bribing the people to gain their support. Imagine if I quoted Hitler on something I did to show my success; people would raise eyebrows, no? And they would ask why I'd quote such a person, and do I associate myself with him? I think that question would be posed by most people and they would take it very seriously. So here she quoted Caesar, and while what that says about her is definitely up to interpretation, the fact is that's who she thought of to associate herself with. I don't think it's irrelevant.

[NobleHunter]

Very little Hitler has said can be dissociated from him. He just wasn't that good at coming up with a bon mot. He's also a meme for guilt-by-association.

Caesar has at least two witticisms that survived for two thousand years and both of them have entered the common vernacular without much connection to their origins. Until I looked it up, I had no idea which of Caesar campaigns the quote referred to and then it was a war I'd never heard of. He's also remembered more for being assassinated than being a tyrant. The most widely-read depiction of his death makes it seem like he was killed before he had a chance at tyranny.

[AI Wessex]

1) The video shows a person laughing about the brutal, torturous murder of another person.

2) The video shows a person who was Secretary of State laughing about the assassination of a foreign head of state, after she herself called for his death; such an assassination is an international crime.

I agree that calling for his death and then celebrating it goes way over the line.  I can't imagine why she would have made either statement.  I'll grant you this was egregious.  Do you think that this, from 6 years ago, evens the "score" with Trump's continued outrageous statements?  To put it differently, if all you knew about Trump and Clinton were the regrettable public comments each has made, which one would you be more inclined to vote for?

[BTW, you shouldn't throw incendiary remarks into threads yourself and then claim you aren't speaking for yourself or expressing your own opinions.  That's what we're here for, isn't it?]

[Fenring]

Do you think that this, from 6 years ago, evens the "score" with Trump's continued outrageous statements?  To put it differently, if all you knew about Trump and Clinton were the regrettable public comments each has made, which one would you be more inclined to vote for?

That's a good question, and on its face I don't think - as I think you don't - the election should boil down to who said the worst thing at what times. It would have to be about whose interests the candidate speaks for, whom they serve, and also to an extent what their character is like. I'd kind of prefer a bum with an honorable agenda than a witty orator who worships the devil. I only issued the Hillary quote since you posted about the "in his own words" Hillary campaign about Trump quotes. I didn't do so to defend Trump, but rather to suggest that anyone can play that game. However there are certain kinds of quotes which are more revealing than others. Trump has repeatedly said things off the cuff that were illogical or incorrect, and then flipped or denied it or whatever. This kind of maneuvering, as a whole, demonstrates that he doesn't take campaign rhetoric very seriously, which is a statement about him to be sure. It doesn't tell us his true beliefs, but it does tell us in what kind of esteem he holds the election process (and I don't blame him on that score). However sometimes a politician lets slip a comment that betrays their true belief about something, and if that belief is ugly there's no way to erase what they said or compare it to some "gaffe" made by someone speaking hastily. So I don't equate every "dumb quote" made by politicians.

[BTW, you shouldn't throw incendiary remarks into threads yourself and then claim you aren't speaking for yourself or expressing your own opinions.  That's what we're here for, isn't it?]

I differentiate between assessment of facts and opinion about them. My assessment about the "we came, we saw..." quote was as I wrote above. My opinion about that isn't as worthy to present since it involves speculation by me about Hillary's character and what that line suggests about what kind of person she is. I guess it's legit for me to post that kind of opinion, but I'm not that interested in pushing my opinions on people. I prefer discussing facts and trying to figure out basic truth in situations. Most disagreements on Ornery seem to be about whether A or B actually happened, rather than taking a common agreement on the facts and saying what we think about them. Jumping to the latter without agreement on the former seems like a quagmire to me. I'm reminded of the thread a year or two ago about the Senate Torture Report (which is now in the process of being disappeared), and how certain posters were contesting the fact that any torture even happened. We could scarcely get to the debate about whether there are circumstances that would warrant it, or whether problems in government allowed these things to go on undetected by the Congress.

[AI Wessex]

My opinion about that isn't as worthy to present since it involves speculation by me about Hillary's character and what that line suggests about what kind of person she is.

The rest of your post is fine, but this is what I have a problem with.  You choose what to post, so whether you add on with a statement like "and it PROVES everything I've been saying" or not, you could have picked other words to convey other interpretations of her positions or personality.  You also snipped a single question and answer (really just the answer without the context of the overall interview or even the question that was asked) out of a stream of interviews and public comments she has made spanning over 40 years in the public service sector, where Trump's remarks were all or for the most parts spontaneous comments for which he was under no compulsion to respond as he did.  For instance, what would have been the question behind his comment that women with small breasts can't be "a 10"?  It doesn't mean nothing.

Both sets of comments are revealing, to be sure, and both are taken out of a very large body of publicly available comments.  But when you (or the Hillary super-PAC) make your selection, you are offering an opinion.  You should own up to what it means, not just that it must mean something or you wouldn't have picked it.

[AI Wessex]

There is still strong interest among some conservatives to field an independent candidate. It would seem crazy to think that a non-Party establishment candidate running as an independent could win the election, not least because there isn't enough time to get him/her (really, white male) on the ballot in all 50 states.  So the real objective has to be to take votes away from Trump in order to take electoral votes away from Clinton.  If such a candidate can get on the ballot on "moderate" toss-up states, like Ohio and Florida and win, neither Clinton nor Trump will have the necessary EVs to win outright and the contest would then be thrown to the House to decide.  That would happen on January 6, 2017.

The procedure would be for each state delegation in the House to get one vote to be cast for one of the top three EV recipients in the election.  That vote would be taken by the new House members, who are sworn in on January 3.  Even if the Democrats win more seats in the House, it's likely that Republicans would have the majority of representatives in more than half of the state delegations.  That means that if Hillary doesn't get 270 EVs on November 8, the next President will be either Trump or the independent with the most votes.

[Pete at Home]

Interesting that you oppose creating an alternative to Trump, Al.

[AI Wessex]

Interesting that you oppose creating an alternative to Trump, Al.

My post has nothing to do with that, as I was only commenting on the likely conservative strategy and objective behind putting up an independent.  I think Trump would be a horrible choice and that Hillary will win in a landslide, so I'm not worried (yet).

[AI Wessex]

Now that Clinton has secured enough delegate votes to win the nomination, it's worth noting that regardless of what other Presidential candidates may have done in private, she is the first one ever to publicly declare their gender identity as a woman.  That, despite the fact that I can't find a single picture of her on the campaign trail wearing a dress.  One wonders if the DNC will now give her a $150,000 clothes allowance like the RNC gave Palin in 2008.

[Fenring]

she is the first one ever to publicly declare their gender identity as a woman.  That, despite the fact that I can't find a single picture of her on the campaign trail wearing a dress.

I'm trying really hard to figure out exactly which set of subtext should be read into this comment. There are so many possibilities. Is it a criticism of the public image of 'femaleness' and applauding Hillary for defying it? Is it an identification of the fact that Hillary may be a woman but she won by acting and dressing 'like a man'? And if so, does that mean she's sold out to the patriarchy, or that she is subverting it?

I know your comment was kind of flip, but for the life of me it would never have come into my mind in a thousand years that "hey, I noticed she never wears a dress!" So something about that stuck out to you; I'm wondering what.

[AI Wessex]

I'm trying really hard to figure out exactly which set of subtext should be read into this comment. There are so many possibilities.

Kind of my point.  Like so many other things, it means something, but to whom and what, YMMV.

I know your comment was kind of flip, but for the life of me it would never have come into my mind in a thousand years that "hey, I noticed she never wears a dress!" So something about that stuck out to you; I'm wondering what.

That's a good observation. I guess I have a guy eye for the ladies and have noticed that from her earliest days in the 60's she has shown a strong preference for gender neutral clothes.  I admire that she never felt compelled to conform to the norms of expected women's attire.  I think it means to me, doctor, that she is an independent minded person and tries to see things as a tailor might, to measure twice and cut once.  In politics it's rare to measure once and cut once; usually you cut twice or more when you do that.  Trump, OTOH, never measures, only cuts and cuts again.

I commented on another thread a month or two ago that many Republican Senators who served with her were and still are almost secret admirers.  They said that when she would walk into a conference room in the Senate building her arms were loaded with binders and folders that she had studied.  More than most people we classify as "politicians", which is a pejorative term, she seems to care about the things she talks about.  Of all the candidates in this election cycle, she has presented more concrete plans and reachable objectives than anyone else.  I admire that in a leader, too.

[Fenring]

many Republican Senators who served with her were and still are almost secret admirers.

Oh, I'm sure they are; they have so much in common.

(I know you didn't mean it like that)

[AI Wessex]

It seems that nothing is out of the question or too absurd to consider when it comes to Trump.  Until now he has managed to scatter and disarm his critics and survive their attacks and skepticism.  But now it looks like the anti-Trump movement is starting to coalesce and Trump is giving it new fuel on a daily basis.  There's no way that he can lose the nomination on the first ballot at the upcoming GOP convention unless the rules are changed.  It's beginning to look like they may be in for an overhaul.

All the wonks say it's a long shot, but consider that the chairman of the convention rules committee is a Cruz delegate and the co-chair of the committee is a Trump delegate who was originally a Bush supporter.  Add the tepid support of Paul Ryan and Trump's dismal performances lately, and it's now a plausible scenario for a revolt to take place.

There are a lot of problems with the dump-the-trump movement.  There's not a lot of time to pull it off, major changes would have to be made to the convention rules, and not least, a replacement candidate has to be found.  Then, of course, Trump would have to go quietly, or if not quietly, quickly so the second string candidate can appear instantly Presidential.

I don't see anyone with the necessary gravitas and broad respect within the party to take the mantle.  For instance, I can't see it being any of the other primary contenders that he whupped.  If the Party voters wanted one of them they would have already picked him/her (for politeness including Carly, but not really).

So, maybe Romney, but the Party faithful blame him for being so poor a candidate that he he lost in 2012 when many thought he should have won in a walk.

Who else?  Nobody I can think of.

But going back to Trump going quietly, he really does have a following.  I would bet that the same proportion of Republican voters would stay home if he wasn't their candidate as a different group of them will stay home if he is.  Of course, if he runs as an outside candidate he doubles down on his own aggrieved candidate status and his ardent and loyal followers follow suit on their anger at being relegated to outsiders by their own party.

The bottom line is that the GOP is screwed if he is their candidate and just as screwed if he's not.  On top of that, either way it goes the GOP has almost decertified itself as a legitimate party, so they may well lose both the Senate and the House in the fall.

Good riddance.

[Pete at Home]

Now that Clinton has secured enough delegate votes to win the nomination, it's worth noting that regardless of what other Presidential candidates may have done in private, she is the first one ever to publicly declare their gender identity as a woman. 

She's the first presidential candidate to run on the fact that she is a woman, and I'm not sure that's a good thing.  (Attacking Bernie for "standing in the way of history?", etc.) 

One wonders if the DNC will now give her a $150,000 clothes allowance like the RNC gave Palin in 2008.

They have to have blown thrice that on Michelle Obama, who makes Evita Peron look like Elanor Roosevelt.   Not cool during an economic depression.

[AI Wessex]

Pete, you constantly amaze me.  You're like a wolf in sheep's clothing, always insisting that you are being harsh but reasonable, but your comments about either of the Obamas or Clintons consistently come across to me as bitter and resentful.  We *know* about Palin's clothes allowance.  Do you have any evidence besides projections based on your personal animosity that the Democratic Party spent a penny on Michelle's wardrobe?

[D.W.]

And even if they did... She's the first lady.  You expect her to shop at Walmart?  This line of criticism is one of the more ridiculous things I've read.  And people float some crazy *censored* around here.

[Pete at Home]

Pete, you constantly amaze me.  You're like a wolf in sheep's clothing, always insisting that you are being harsh but reasonable, but your comments about either of the Obamas or Clintons consistently come across to me as bitter and resentful. 

All I did is turn around your bitter and resentful whines about another female politician's clothes.  And I'm a bit bitter yes, that democrats defamed Ben Carson's wife for not dressing like a fragging diva.

And even if they did... She's the first lady.  You expect her to shop at Walmart?  This line of criticism is one of the more ridiculous things I've read.  And people float some crazy *censored* around here.

Like I said, I think Elanor Roosevelt set the standard of how a first lady that cares about the people dresses during an economic depression.

I think that our first couple set a wonderful example of a loving and faithful family relationship, and I like that Michelle Obama follows Mrs. Roosevelt's example when it comes to raising her voice in numerous good causes.  I find it sad where she departs from Mrs. Roosevelt's example; I don't think it's appropriate for her to court fashion magazines.  We aren't in the roaring twenties.  I believe that high crime and high violence are primarily products of ECONOMIC INEQUITY (real liberals would agree with me on that) and dressing the first lady up like another one of the rich oligarchs only magnifies the problem.

[AI Wessex]

I find that a pretty arbitrary comparison.  Why didn't Laura Bush wear black for 7 years after the 9/11 attack?  How insensitive of her was that?  Is it critical to find them wanting in every aspect?  FOX attacked Michelle for "lecturing" the nation on good nutrition and exercise, because...well, we know why. 

[Pete at Home]

I find that a pretty arbitrary comparison.

White house ladies during a depression?  Was the comparison "arbitrary" when I praised Michelle Obama as being Elanor-like with regard to her political activity?

Face it, Al -- you're just being a partisan hack.  Any negative thing I say about the Obamas you attack as vicious and horrible, and anything positive I say about them, you just ignore, because you can't cope with the fact that someone might like the Obamas on certain issues and disagree with them on others.

[scifibum]

I believe that high crime and high violence are primarily products of ECONOMIC INEQUITY (real liberals would agree with me on that) and dressing the first lady up like another one of the rich oligarchs only magnifies the problem.

I think your use of "magnifies" is probably accurate in that she's very visible and it makes the luxuries enjoyed by the ruling classes somewhat more evident than they might be otherwise, but I would stop short of criticizing her for it nonetheless.  It's just such a minor thing, and I don't think we get anywhere by noting such minor shortcomings of virtue. 

In the same way, we can safely ignore Palin's clothing budget. 

We do have to watch out for sharks in pig's clothing, too, as the "High Sparrow" character in A Song of Ice and Fire points out.  I don't know of anyone who qualifies based on the clothing they wear, but some of the TV evangelists certainly get along nicely with their outward piety and quiet fleecing.

[AI Wessex]

Face it, Al -- you're just being a partisan hack.  Any negative thing I say about the Obamas you attack as vicious and horrible, and anything positive I say about them, you just ignore, because you can't cope with the fact that someone might like the Obamas on certain issues and disagree with them on others.

I don't like your constant fault-finding.  Even her clothes, for which you have to go back 70 years to find someone you can hold up as a mirror to shame her. Come up with something more substantial than how the First Lady dresses on public occasions and maybe we'll find common ground.

[Pete at Home]

Face it, Al -- you're just being a partisan hack.  Any negative thing I say about the Obamas you attack as vicious and horrible, and anything positive I say about them, you just ignore, because you can't cope with the fact that someone might like the Obamas on certain issues and disagree with them on others.

I don't like your constant fault-finding. 

Hypocrite!  You're the one who brought up Palin's shagging wardrobe, and turned this discussion onto a whine - fest of women's clothing.

Even her clothes, for which you have to go back 70 years to find someone you can hold up as a mirror to shame her.

That's absurd.  I could bring up Hillary Clinton, or any first lady.  Hell, no First Lady in history has done such a vanity tour as Michelle's handlers.  You're too much of a hack to grasp that I was actually flattering her by comparing her to Elanor Roosevelt, for good and for bad.  If I thought you were brighter, I'd think you were setting me up to drag her through the mud.

how the First Lady dresses on public occasion

What does that have to do with the price of lice?  I criticized the supermodel in chief's shootings for fashion magazines. 

[Pete at Home]

If you search on the forum for Michelle Obama and Saudi Arabia, you'll see that I actually have nothing but praise for her public appearance clothes, (and in response to your foolish question, it takes guts to dress as she did in Saudi Arabia).

[AI Wessex]

Trump voters are Republicans, only moreso.  In this case, moreso means more suspicious, fearful, xenophobic and protectionist.  They want comfort and aren't too concerned about how they get there.

When it comes to whether a person is bothered by immigrants who speak little to no English, Republicans in general are significantly more bothered (66 percent) than Democrats (35 percent). But Trump backers are significantly more bothered still, at 77 percent.
...
Four in 10 Trump supporters (41 percent) want to identify and deport all illegal immigrants, compared with about 3 in 10 (29 percent) Republicans.
...
Trump supporters are about 11 points more likely than your average Republican to say that immigrants increase crime in local communities.
...
...while 72 percent of Republicans believe that discrimination against whites has become as bad as discrimination against blacks and other minority groups, among Trump supporters the number is 81 percent.

And 74 percent of Republicans say the American way of life should be protected against foreign influence, while 83 percent of Trump supporters say this — including 45 percent who are "completely" in agreement.
...
And, perhaps not surprisingly, Trump's base is significantly more apt to support a ban on Syrian refugees, building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and banning all Muslim immigrants — Trump proposals all.
...
The pattern is actually remarkably consistent across all of these questions, with the gap between the GOP and Trump supporters being about 10 points, give or take. Of course, there is plenty of overlap among Trump supporters and Republicans, so if you isolated the non-Trump Republicans, you'd get a significantly bigger gap between Trump backers and other Republicans on many of these issues.

This is another indication that Trump won't carry as much of his own Party as Romney or any other GOP candidate in recent memory, putting him in "Goldwater" territory.  But these are also the segment of the Republican Party base - angry white men - who are most likely to "take matters into their own hands" if they don't get what they want.  I think that we may see a new Party come out of this, the Tea Party on steroids (the FAWX Man Party - Fear, Anxiety, White & Xenophobia Men), that will coalesce in the South and will fight with the traditional Republican Party for at least a generation.  The question is whether the Republican Party can survive either with or without them.

[Pete at Home]

I believe that high crime and high violence are primarily products of ECONOMIC INEQUITY (real liberals would agree with me on that) and dressing the first lady up like another one of the rich oligarchs only magnifies the problem.

I think your use of "magnifies" is probably accurate in that she's very visible and it makes the luxuries enjoyed by the ruling classes somewhat more evident than they might be otherwise, but I would stop short of criticizing her for it nonetheless.  It's just such a minor thing, and I don't think we get anywhere by noting such minor shortcomings of virtue. 

In the same way, we can safely ignore Palin's clothing budget. 

On the whole, I think Michelle Obama has done more good than harm in the public sphere.  Ultimately I'm not criticizing her but her handlers. And I'd not have brought it up except in response to the hateful spectre of Dems attacking Mrs. Carson for "not dressing like a first lady," and the jackassery of Palin's clothing being brought up as if it were relevant to this election.  I agree that we don't "get anywhere by noting such minor shortcomings of virtue" but I think that the discussion's a good introduction to a much more important topic; how advertising, image, and fashiobation magnify inequity and hence increase violence.  Violence cannot be bred by inequity which no one perceives.  It's the perception of inequity that drives social violence.

[AI Wessex]

I agree that we don't "get anywhere by noting such minor shortcomings of virtue"...

But you didn't raise anything besides noting that minor shortcoming, which has nothing to do with virtue.  FWIW, Eleanor Roosevelt was seen as an icon of dress style in her day as a romanticized reminder of the formality and propriety of the Victorian era.  If you can find anything that says she dressed like a dowager to show solidarity with poor people I'd be interested to see it.

but I think that the discussion's a good introduction to a much more important topic; how advertising, image, and fashiobation magnify inequity and hence increase violence.

You didn't raise this either, which would be a potentially useful discussion.  Really, you only raised it to whine like a gossip, but it's good to see that you are at least giving it a wider thought now.

[AI Wessex]

Eleanor Roosevelt was seen as an icon of dress style in her day as a romanticized reminder of the formality and propriety of the Victorian era

That didn't come out quite right. She was a reactionary figure whose personal demeanor (and looks) stood in opposition to the free-swinging and more sexually provocative styles of the previous decade.  In that light she did reflect the conservative and pragmatic concerns of the lower classes, but it was her personality rather than any sort of effort of solidarity that drove her stylistic choices.